Trees and flowers

[Cyperium]

How come a tree can evolve to grow flowers on them?

Did trees evolve from flowers, or flowers from trees, the stem of the tree being like a expanded flower? Is there any other explanation?

[invert_nexus]

Umm.
Is there a reason why a tree shouldn't have flowers?
The only way I can make sense of your question is if you have this stereotype of flowering plants being small little plants rather than larger plants such as trees and/or bushes.
If so, then you are under a grave misconception...

Anyway.
I'm not an expert on plant lineages, but the first thing that I would think is that flowering evolved before trees and other flowering plants diverged.
There is a possibility that flowers have evolved multiple times as convergent evolution, but find it likely that the vast majority of flowering plants have a common heritage.

As to which came first (the tree or the smaller flowering plants), I'd guess that the smaller plants were first and the trees evolved from them.

[Fraggle Rocker]

Flowers were a late development. The first angiosperms (flowering plants) arose about 125 million years ago. They were highly successful and became the dominant type of plant within 25 million years. Angiosperms are one of two types of plants that reproduce by seeds, their seeds are enclosed in hulls of one sort or another.

The other is gymnosperms, which don't bear flowers and whose seeds are exposed, the most familiar arrangement being laid out on the lobes of pine cones. Conifers (gymnosperm trees) go back more than 200 million years.

The earliest trees arose more than 300 million years ago. They were tree ferns, which still exist, and horsetails, which still exist but no longer as trees. Ferns don't have seeds or flowers and reproduce using spores.

Flowers are only one way of reproducing. They have become the most common and successful way because flowering plants get animals to assist in their mating by spreading pollen. But there are other ways, such as cones and spores, and trees don't need flowers in order to reproduce,

[iceaura]

Most of the major lineages of flowering plants have evolved their own tree forms. There are trees derived from beans, trees in the rose family, trees that are big daisies, etc.

The generic flower probably came first in a small plant, if only because small, fast-reproducing beings are more likely to evolve innovations. Likewise, in each lineage the ancestors would more likely be small, quickly reproducing plants, with the tree form branching out later.

Trees are more closely related to the small flowers of their kind than they are to each other.

[Cyperium]

Umm.
Is there a reason why a tree shouldn't have flowers?
The only way I can make sense of your question is if you have this stereotype of flowering plants being small little plants rather than larger plants such as trees and/or bushes.
If so, then you are under a grave misconception...

Anyway.
I'm not an expert on plant lineages, but the first thing that I would think is that flowering evolved before trees and other flowering plants diverged.
There is a possibility that flowers have evolved multiple times as convergent evolution, but find it likely that the vast majority of flowering plants have a common heritage.

As to which came first (the tree or the smaller flowering plants), I'd guess that the smaller plants were first and the trees evolved from them.Well, I guess what I found confusing was that one species grew on another...

Perhaps it first evolved into a cluster of branches with flowers and leafs on them (as we see in nature today), and then the cluster evolved into a bush with smaller and more leafs and more flowers, until it became a tree?

Is there any kind of evolutionary trigger to such an evolution? Perhaps lack of sunlight and more nourishment in the soil (enabling bigger roots and thus sturdier structure), what do you think?

Perhaps the trees evolved because there were not enough animals to eat the flowers and long grass etc., with the consequence of it wanting to grow higher in order to reach the sunlight?

[Fraggle Rocker]

I would say that trees are a textbook example of convergent evolution. Trees have evolved independently from earlier forms in at least six of the nine divisions (phyla) of plants. Those are just the ones I can vouch for, perhaps there are others. These are six separate evolutionary paths leading to superficially similar but genetically unrelated organisms with enormous differences in their details.

Conifers, palms, flowering trees, ferns, horsetails, gnetophytes, and perhaps others... starting from all these vastly different kinds of plants, trees emerged. There is clearly something about the form of a tree that makes it a successful evolutionary result, if so many different mutations leading in that direction all resulted in survival advantages.

[Cyperium]

I would say that trees are a textbook example of convergent evolution. Trees have evolved independently from earlier forms in at least six of the nine divisions (phyla) of plants. Those are just the ones I can vouch for, perhaps there are others. These are six separate evolutionary paths leading to superficially similar but genetically unrelated organisms with enormous differences in their details.

Conifers, palms, flowering trees, ferns, horsetails, gnetophytes, and perhaps others... starting from all these vastly different kinds of plants, trees emerged. There is clearly something about the form of a tree that makes it a successful evolutionary result, if so many different mutations leading in that direction all resulted in survival advantages.Well, we can say for sure that plants came first, so could there have been a environment/climate-change so that a sturdier form was needed, or could it be that the plants were so successfull that they covered every surface, thus making evolution of trees with a sturdier form necessary for continued prosperity (a reversed cause for evolution you could say)?

[Mosheh Thezion]

it is a great debate...

as to why flowers formed.. especially on trees.

part of the debate between creationists and evolutionists.

like the eye.

-MT

[iceaura]

I would say that trees are a textbook example of convergent evolution. They are not similar enough, in my judgment - they have height in common, and little else. At least, the physical requirements of size are not usually called examples of convergent evolution in, say, moose and elephants and crocodiles.

The advantage of height, for a plant, is pretty obvious: the sunlight is that way, first come first served.

[Cyperium]

it is a great debate...

as to why flowers formed.. especially on trees.

part of the debate between creationists and evolutionists.

like the eye.

-MTI think that we can find many cases that shows these kind of things, and the interesting thing, is not that it is proof of something supernatural, but because we don't understand it, it shows something that we as of yet don't know about. That is why it is interesting for me to find such things.

It should be of interest to scientists also...

There shouldn't be a debate between creationists and evolutionists either, but since we believe in creation we must see the world and it's principles as a part of that creation, not everyone has to know everything about the world, so we have a mass of people following what others have found, through media and other channels of popular belief the reality of it all can be lost. It is our duty to show an unbiased truth where the mass one on one can decide for themselves (individually) what they want to believe in.

I personally think that scientists should embrace the faith of the people, since that has a value and to not have faith has no value.

[iceaura]

I personally think that scientists should embrace the faith of the people, since that has a value and to not have faith has no value. So now you demand that those who know better embrace nonsense, as the only faith you will credit with value?

[Avatar]

Well, we can say for sure that plants came first, so could there have been a environment/climate-change so that a sturdier form was needed, or could it be that the plants were so successfull that they covered every surface, thus making evolution of trees with a sturdier form necessary for continued prosperity (a reversed cause for evolution you could say)?

From the limited knowledge that I have in this: Plants first appeared under water. Then slowly progressed towards the shores, on the shores, but the land then was still barren and empty, the upper soil away from rivers was mostly dust, and winds were far greater, because there were no forests to calm them, thus small plants couldn't grow away from river banks.

The trees did that, they could withstand wind and their deep roots allowed them to take water from deeper under ground where there was moisture.

As forests developed, they held together the soil, trapped water and gave shade, thus transforming the soil and allowing smaller plants to grow beside them.

That's one theory in short at least.

[Cyperium]

From the limited knowledge that I have in this: Plants first appeared under water. Then slowly progressed towards the shores, on the shores, but the land then was still barren and empty, the upper soil away from rivers was mostly dust, and winds were far greater, because there were no forests to calm them, thus small plants couldn't grow away from river banks.

The trees did that, they could withstand wind and their deep roots allowed them to take water from deeper under ground where there was moisture.

As forests developed, they held together the soil, trapped water and gave shade, thus transforming the soil and allowing smaller plants to grow beside them.

That's one theory in short at least.Thank you Avatar.

[Cyperium]

So now you demand that those who know better embrace nonsense, as the only faith you will credit with value?You might want to read my post again.

[Fraggle Rocker]

It is a great debate... as to why flowers formed.. especially on trees.You've got it backwards. Flowers did not form on trees. Plants that already had flowers developed into trees. The trees we see today that have flowers did not develop from the trees that have no flowers. Those two types of trees are not closely related at all; the one is not the ancestor of the other.

Trees with flowers and trees without flowers developed independently, each from their own ancestors. Magnolia trees, for example, are far more closely related to daisies and tulips than they are to pine trees or palm trees.

That is what I meant by my reference to convergent evolution. Six or seven different--and only distantly related--divisions of the plant kingdom each evolved their very own types of trees. The trees look similar and have many of the same features that help them survive and prosper, but if you look closely they are built differently and come from different origins.

[Roman]

They are not similar enough, in my judgment - they have height in common, and little else. At least, the physical requirements of size are not usually called examples of convergent evolution in, say, moose and elephants and crocodiles.

The advantage of height, for a plant, is pretty obvious: the sunlight is that way, first come first served.

As herbivorous megafauna go, elephants and moose could be considered examples of convergent evolution. Both are large, terrestial mammals, browse, spend a great deal of time in the water, and have a profound impact on flora. Not terrific, though.

You aren't familiar enough with trees to know how convergent their evolution is, then. Trees from radically different clades have evolved to occupy the same niches in virtually every forest on earth. It's the classic definition of convergent evolution- unrelated species filling the same ecological role, whether it be rapidly growing forest giant, or shade tolerant hardwood.

[iceaura]

You aren't familiar enough with trees to know how convergent their evolution is, then. Trees from radically different clades have evolved to occupy the same niches in virtually every forest on earth. But the niche isn't "tree" itself. The convergence is not to "tree" - that's just a size designation, and "convergence" there makes no more sense than calling moose and elephants "convergent" because they both weigh more than 250 kilograms and eat plants.

[Ziazan]

Flower and tree